- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana Senate is really controlled by Democrats
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:38 pm to doubleb
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:38 pm to doubleb
Looks like the the House has basically quit.
From Elizabeth Crisp Twitter:
From Elizabeth Crisp Twitter:
quote:
Henry on HB1: "At 11:45 pm tonight, if everything falls apart.... I will ask you all to concur in the Senate amendments."
1
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:41 pm to BigJim
quote:
but I don't see TOPS as welfare. It is an alternative higher education funding mechanism. It is basically student vouchers for higher education.
If one defines welfare an an individualized payment, then TOPS is welfare.
I think the difference with student vouchers, is, we as a society have decided to pay for anyone's K-12 education (assuming they go where we tell them to go for schools). Student vouchers is just a redirection of that pot of money.
It's semantics in many ways.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:41 pm to doubleb
quote:
People have been saying just that for several years now, but that's no excuse. The deal is currently capped at 200 million per year paid out, but the state is actually committed for more.
If they would have cut this welfare thing completely out three years ago it would have made a difference.
These fools in BR can't make decisions for stuff that affects the state a month from now. You expect them to be able to do long-term planning?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:12 pm to BigJim
If it were up to me all higher ed funding would be through vouchers and the state institutions would be privatized and compete for the vouchers. Students could redeem any amount the savings they got from shopping the schools for cash.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:26 pm to LSUFanHouston
They make decisions all the time.
In this case they bowed to the Hollywood lobby and decided to keep the program.
In this case they bowed to the Hollywood lobby and decided to keep the program.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:44 pm to Bard
I'd be okay if we just paid for the lower tier of Tops to go to Community College. That's where they belong anyway. Maintain a decent GPA and finish CC on time, will then pay for you to go to a 4-year School
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:02 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Looks like the the House has basically quit.
Not quite yet. That was on the budget bill. The real fight is on the revenue bills.
The fight there is between .3 of a penny and .5 of a penny. They should just go with .4 and be done with it.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:03 pm to doubleb
quote:
They make decisions all the time.
In this case they bowed to the Hollywood lobby and decided to keep the program.
There are maybe 3 legislators who understand the film program and how it works. I may be over counting by 3.
But the fact remains they can't generate savings out of the film program for several fiscal years. It isn't low hanging fruit that many think it is. It will take years to unwind, and legislators don't care about things that they can't get immediate credit for.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:05 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
If it were up to me all higher ed funding would be through vouchers and the state institutions would be privatized and compete for the vouchers.
So then the problem is that TOPS doesn't go far enough. You understand that if they eliminate TOPS the money will just go back to direct campus aid. That is step backward from your goal.
quote:Well not cash, but for use on books, room and board and the MANY other related school supplies. That I totally agree with. Gives schools a reason not to just keep hiking tuition.
Students could redeem any amount the savings they got from shopping the schools for cash.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:06 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
But the fact remains they can't generate savings out of the film program for several fiscal years. It isn't low hanging fruit that many think it is. It will take years to unwind, and legislators don't care about things that they can't get immediate credit for.
Well, they could. They got an immediate impact when they limited redemption. They could get a further immediate impact by further limiting redemption.
However, that is a terrible piss-poor way to govern, and a government breaking promises is no way to improve the economy.
By the way, your "3 legislators, overcounting by 3" comment could apply to pretty much any fiscal issue they deal with.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:08 pm to BigJim
quote:
They should just go with .4 and be done with it.
whatever they go with they need to sack up and do it permanently
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:12 pm to BigJim
quote:
So then the problem is that TOPS doesn't go far enough. You understand that if they eliminate TOPS the money will just go back to direct campus aid. That is step backward from your goal.
The real elephant in the room isn't TOPS, or direct aid.
It's students who have no business going straight to a four year universities. Which, itself, is a problem caused by too many four-year universities.
If you can't get a HS GPA of 3.0 and ACT of 23-24, you don't need to go straight to a four year university, at least, not on the public's dime.
If you are anywhere between the current TOPS requirements and a 3.0/23-24, the only thing you should get, if anything, is 4 semesters at a community college. Once you get 60 hours in community college with a 3.0 GPA, then I have absolutely no problem awarding you four more semesters of TOPS to be used at a four year college.
I truly believe at this point, TOPS is a mechanism to keep enrollment numbers up, as opposed to something that actually helps students.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:21 pm to BigJim
quote:
Not quite yet. That was on the budget bill. The real fight is on the revenue bills.
The fight there is between .3 of a penny and .5 of a penny. They should just go with .4 and be done with it.
Since you seem like a smart guy who gets the politics of all this, humor me for a second.
There are a number of GOPers in the House in the no-tax, no-way, no-how camp (My rep, Garafolo, is one of them).
To get the votes, the leaders are having to cut deals with the Black Caucus including this EITC expansion.
To me, this EITC vote-buying is a much more egregious example of government expansion, and encouraging waste, than an extension of a temp tax.
So by forcing the leadership to negotiate with the black caucus, the no-tax group is actually getting further away from their ideals.
Where am I reading this wrong?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:27 pm to LSUFanHouston
If they really give in on the EITC then you are correct.
I just don't see that happening. Essentially the black caucus has a lot more to lose if revenue isn't passed at all. Republicans lose TOPS. Black caucus loses everything else.
If they gave up EITC to pass a sales tax, that would be very very dumb (unless they got something else in return).
I just don't see that happening. Essentially the black caucus has a lot more to lose if revenue isn't passed at all. Republicans lose TOPS. Black caucus loses everything else.
If they gave up EITC to pass a sales tax, that would be very very dumb (unless they got something else in return).
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:38 pm to BlackAdam
Oh I understand what's going on.
We created another entitlement for another special interest.
We created another entitlement for another special interest.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:46 pm to BigJim
House just rejected Senate amendments that added EITC to a revenue bill.
Of course this could be added back in conference committee.
Could blow up the session or the caucus could just be bluffing
Of course this could be added back in conference committee.
Could blow up the session or the caucus could just be bluffing
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:52 pm to BigJim
So we now need a conference report on revenue and one on budget.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:59 pm to LSUFanHouston
You need government on blockchain. Education should be online. Legalizing drugs would reduce need for big police force. Move the eligible age for welfare, no more teen parents. Pave the damn roads.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:05 pm to LSUFanHouston
There is no TOPS in Mississippi. Why do we need one in Louisiana? No TOPs in Texas. ect. ect.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:58 pm to LSUFanHouston
I’m not sure what’s really happening but we are getting screwed I know that. Why can’t agriculture products be taxed like everything else in the state? That’s millions of dollars not being realized. I’m not for raising taxes but I’m for every these items being treated the same.
Raise TOPS requirements, change the nursing home scheme, tax agricultural products, phase out the film credits, and get rid of the temporary sales tax they imposed in 2016.
I know we are arguing over a few dollars here but we should get the most out of our money. If there isn’t a work requirement for snap benefits, then that needs to be put in there too.
Raise TOPS requirements, change the nursing home scheme, tax agricultural products, phase out the film credits, and get rid of the temporary sales tax they imposed in 2016.
I know we are arguing over a few dollars here but we should get the most out of our money. If there isn’t a work requirement for snap benefits, then that needs to be put in there too.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News